"The Da Vinci Code" is not a good book. Argue all you want, but Dan Brown's characters are flat, his prose is downright laughable, and he relies on cliched hook endings to his chapters to keep readers reading. The only crutch he has is an interesting, controversial premise (which was in no way original, mind you). So what happens when you transport what's basically a mediocre pulp novel to the screen with A-list stars and an A-list director? You get a movie that doesn't realize how much more fun it needs to be to be successful. "Da Vinci Code" is at least a half hour too long, and there's a section near the end that's so painfully drawn out and overwrought that I began to wonder what was going through Ron Howard's head when he was making it. In order to get Brown's historical ideas across, Howard uses color-drained, grainy flashbacks, which wouldn't be so bad except he then uses them every five minutes or so in tiny snippets to try unsuccessfully to give his characters backstory.

So that's the bad, but on to the good. This movie is beautiful; several shots are worth marveling at. The performances are good, as they should be with this kind of cast. Ian McKellan as Teabing and Paul Bettany as Silas (who makes virtually no noise when he moves, pretty cool and creepy) steal every scene they're in. If there's anyone miscast here it would be Tom Hanks; he's no summer movie hero and keeps the tone somber. Howard uses some "Beautiful Mind"-esque visual tricks that are very cool and effective, and once the character of Teabing is introduced about an hour in the movie picks up a lot of steam for awhile, before deflating entirely in the final scenes.

The main problem here is the Howard has stayed far too close to the source material. While everyone has read the book, I don't think anyone is so slavishly devoted to it that they would denounce the film for leaving some stuff out, as was the worry with the "Harry Potter" film franchise. As a diversion, "Da Vinci Code" works as a thriller that gives your mind a bit more to chew on than the usual run-and-gun summer flick. But given that the book itself seemed more screenplay than novel pretty often, this should have been so much better. **1/2 out of 4.

Stay away, a real loser, even if you liked the book. Rent it, but be prepared for a poor movie even then. I found myself laughing through some "dramatic" scenes, and after two hours I was hoping it would end, please!! And to really jazz it up they always added a few police cars to mix, just to show how serious the scene was. This was a waste of money. I have no issues with the religious themes, which are quite laughable from a historic perspective. This is just bad movie making. Stay home, save your money. The critics are right on this one, this reeked.

Enjoyable, even though I haven't read the book. Has me curious to read the book though.

I like \"The Da Vinci Code.\" And that\'s coming from soneone who never read the book, so I can only comment on the movie. When the movie was released last weeked, religious leaders denounced the movie. Protesters standing outside movie theatres carrying sings, denouncing the movie. Asking people not to see the it. Well it didn\'t help the protest. The film took in $77 Million last weekend, and is about to hit the 100 million mark shortly. So now it\'s my turn to comment on the movie, what do you know, I like it. I though it was a smart and supenseful movie. It may be boring in spots, but it was an intresting film. The movie combind Christian history with fiction based on the book. And about Tom Hank\'s hair. Lay off. His hair is fine. It\'s two and a half hours of pure supense. I like the film a lot. Another great movie from Director Ron Howard, who knows a lot from making good movies.

FACT: This movie is BORING! If Dan Brown could get history correct and not slur what historians have already proven to be fact, this movie would still be BORING! And the biggest joke about it is “the painting” done aprox. 1000 years after Christ, being treated as a photo. Like DaVinci was there? So I guess if we look at all “impressionist” renaissance historical paintings we need to treat them as FACT from now on? Tom Hanks couldn’t even make this movie worth seeing in the theaters. Rent it, study history, and learn what can earn the right of the word FACT.

The only reason I rate the DaVinci Code good is beacuse I read the book. The book is alway so much more than the movies they inspire. So with that said, I think the movie goer that will enjoy The DaVinci Code the most are thise that have NOT read the book. I think Ron Howard tried to be as faithful to the source material as possible and did a good job. As I stated before I read the book so I hard a hard time seeing Tom Hamks as Robert Langdon. For the first time I saw him as an actor, not the character he was portraying. But after a while I started to buy into it.

The other thing movie goers need to keep in mind is this is a MOVIE. Entertainment. But you do leave the theater saying what if. It does what a good movie should. It provokes thought and discussion. You may even question a few things. But isn't that what we are supposed to do, question and find answers. Please don't let the powers that be stop you from questioning anything, even if you don't totally agree.

I\'m a huge fan of the book. I thought the movie was well done. One point really deviated from the book, which disappointed me, so that drops Da Vinci to just \"good\". I think it\'s a \"See Now!\" if you haven\'t read the book.

The church can stop protesting over this movie because it will soon find its way to the back of the Block Buster video shelfs and will be used as a bookend.

What the Da Vinci Code reveals is an empty golden egg laid by the talented flim maker Ron Howard, and a uninspired performance by Tom Hanks.

In short even Viagra couldn't help this let down.

Very believable story, every Catholic should see.

The book is better - but you will enjoy it!